Radical Constructivism: A Scientific Research Program
Leslie P. Steffe
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Purpose: In the paper, I discuss how Ernst Glasersfeld worked as a scientist on the project, Interdisciplinary Research on Number (IRON), and explain how his scientific activity fueled his development of radical constructivism. I also present IRON as a progressive research program in radical constructivism and suggest the essential components of such programs. Findings: The basic problem of Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism is to explore the operations by means of which we assemble our experiential reality. Conceptual analysis is Glasersfeld’s way of doing science and he used it in IRON to analyze the units that young children create and count in the activity of counting. In his work in IRON, Glasersfeld first conducted a first-order conceptual analysis of his own operations that produce units and number, and then participated in a second-order analysis of the language and actions of children and inferred the mental operations that they use to produce units and number. Further, Glasersfeld used Piaget’s concept of equilibration in the context of scheme theory in a second-order analysis of children’s construction of number sequences and of more advanced ways and means of operating in the traffic of numbers. Research Implications: The scientific method of first- and second-order conceptual analysis transcends our work in IRON and it is applicable in any radical constructivist research program whose problem is to explore the operations by means of which we construct our conceptions. Because of the difficulties involved with introspection, conducting second-order conceptual analyses is essential in exploring these operations and it involves analyzing the language and actions of the observed. But conceptual analysis is only a part of the research process because the researchers are by necessity already involved in creating occasions of observation. The “experimenter” and the “analyst” can be the same person or they can be different people. Either case involves intensive and sustained interdisciplinary thinking and ways of working if the research program is to be maintained over a substantial period of time as a progressive research program.
Key words: scientific research program, attentional model, conceptual analysis, radical constructivism
Citation
Steffe L. P. (2007) Radical constructivism: A scientific research program. Constructivist Foundations 2(2-3): 41–49. http://constructivist.info/2/2-3/041
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Ceccato S. (1974) In the garden of choices. In: Smock C. D. & Glasersfeld, von E. (eds.) Epistemology and education. Follow Through Publications, Athens GA: 125–142.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ferreiro E. (1991) Literacy acquisition and the representation of language. In: Kamii C., Manning M. & Manning C. (eds.). Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language. NEA Professional Library, Washington DC: 31–55.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld, von E. (1974) Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology. In: Smock C. D. & Glasersfeld E. von (eds.) Epistemology and education. Follow Through Publications, Athens GA: 1–24. Reprinted in: Glasersfeld, von E. (1987) The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics. Intersystems Publications: Seaside CA.
http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/034
Glasersfeld, von E. (1980) The concept of equilibration in a constructivist theory of knowledge. In Benseler F., Hejl P. M. & Kock W. K. (eds.) Autopoisis, communication, and society. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/M.: 75–85.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kenny V. (1988) Radical constructivism, autopoiesis & psychotherapy. The Irish Journal of Psychology 9(1): 25–82.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lakatos I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In: Lakatos I. & Musgrave A. (eds.) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 91–195.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Author, Reston VA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author: Reston VA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Olive J. (1999) From fractions to rational numbers of arithmetic: A reorganization hypothesis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 1: 279–314.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1966) Some convergences between formal and genetic analyses. In: Beth E. W. & Piaget J. (eds.) Mathematical epistemology and psychology. D. Reidel, Boston: 259–280. First published in 1965 by Presses Universitaires de France, Paris as Volume XIV of the “Études d’ Épistémologie Génétiqué”
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Steffe L. P. & Hirstein J. & Spikes C. (1976) Quantitative comparison and class inclusion as readiness variables for learning first grade arithmetic content. Technical Report No. 9. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED144808. Project for Mathematical Development of Children, Tallahassee, FL.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Steffe L. P. (1994) Children’s multiplying schemes. In: Harel G. & Confrey J. (eds.) Multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. SUNY Press, Albany NY: 3–39.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson P. W. & Saldanha L. (2003) Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In: Kilpatrick J. & Martin G. (eds.) Research companion to the NCTM Standards. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington DC: 95–114.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tzur R. (1999) An integrated study of children’s construction of improper fractions and the teacher’s role in promoting that learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30: 390–416.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
